{"title":"心血管疾病特定健康相关生活质量工具的系统回顾与质量评估》第一部分:工具开发与内容有效性。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2024.04.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) instruments for cardiovascular diseases (CVD) have been commonly used to measure important patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials and practices. This study aimed at systematically identifying and assessing the content validity of CVD-specific HRQoL instruments in clinical studies.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The research team searched Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, and PubMed from inception to January 20, 2022. The research team included studies that reported the development and content validity for CVD-specific instruments. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments methods on evaluating content validity of PROs. Content analysis was used to categorize the items included in the instruments.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The research team found 69 studies reporting the content validity of 40 instruments specifically developed for CVD. Fourteen (35.0%) were rated “sufficient” with very low to moderate quality of evidence. For PRO development, all instruments were rated “doubtful” or “inadequate.” Twenty-eight (70.0%) instruments cover the core concepts of HRQoL.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The quality of development and content validity vary among existing CVD-specific instruments. The evidence on the content validity should be considered when choosing a HRQoL instrument in CVD clinical studies and health economic evaluations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098301524023313/pdfft?md5=a377122805b62a03b62264f4d9c7d66b&pid=1-s2.0-S1098301524023313-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment of Cardiovascular Disease-Specific Health-Related Quality-of-Life Instruments Part I: Instrument Development and Content Validity\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jval.2024.04.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) instruments for cardiovascular diseases (CVD) have been commonly used to measure important patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials and practices. This study aimed at systematically identifying and assessing the content validity of CVD-specific HRQoL instruments in clinical studies.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The research team searched Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, and PubMed from inception to January 20, 2022. The research team included studies that reported the development and content validity for CVD-specific instruments. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments methods on evaluating content validity of PROs. Content analysis was used to categorize the items included in the instruments.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The research team found 69 studies reporting the content validity of 40 instruments specifically developed for CVD. Fourteen (35.0%) were rated “sufficient” with very low to moderate quality of evidence. For PRO development, all instruments were rated “doubtful” or “inadequate.” Twenty-eight (70.0%) instruments cover the core concepts of HRQoL.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The quality of development and content validity vary among existing CVD-specific instruments. The evidence on the content validity should be considered when choosing a HRQoL instrument in CVD clinical studies and health economic evaluations.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23508,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Value in Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098301524023313/pdfft?md5=a377122805b62a03b62264f4d9c7d66b&pid=1-s2.0-S1098301524023313-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Value in Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098301524023313\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098301524023313","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment of Cardiovascular Disease-Specific Health-Related Quality-of-Life Instruments Part I: Instrument Development and Content Validity
Objectives
Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) instruments for cardiovascular diseases (CVD) have been commonly used to measure important patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials and practices. This study aimed at systematically identifying and assessing the content validity of CVD-specific HRQoL instruments in clinical studies.
Methods
The research team searched Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, and PubMed from inception to January 20, 2022. The research team included studies that reported the development and content validity for CVD-specific instruments. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments methods on evaluating content validity of PROs. Content analysis was used to categorize the items included in the instruments.
Results
The research team found 69 studies reporting the content validity of 40 instruments specifically developed for CVD. Fourteen (35.0%) were rated “sufficient” with very low to moderate quality of evidence. For PRO development, all instruments were rated “doubtful” or “inadequate.” Twenty-eight (70.0%) instruments cover the core concepts of HRQoL.
Conclusions
The quality of development and content validity vary among existing CVD-specific instruments. The evidence on the content validity should be considered when choosing a HRQoL instrument in CVD clinical studies and health economic evaluations.
期刊介绍:
Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.